Homosexuality

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Yeah cause it only mentioned four or five other causes, but you latched onto the only one that supports your theory. Okay.

Yes but you continue to ignore the reality that as a population, homosexual males make up the majority of AIDS cases vis a vis their representation in the overall population. If slightly less than one half of the cases were homosexual males and if 3% of the population is homosexual, then obviously homosexual males are OVER REPRESENTED as a distinct population. Even if we accept 10% homosexual they would STILL be over represented. Further as I said preveiously AIDS is spread by deviant behavior, homosexual sex, promiscuity and IV drug use. It would not be spread by monogamous hetersexuals. Do the math

Lisa N

 

[Jennie]

Tlaloc:

I simply point out that the idea that homosexuality has no genetic basis is false according to the data. How you reconcile that with your faith is up to you.

According to my own personal data, based on observation through the thirty plus years of my life, homosexuality is exactly what the Church says it is.

The homosexual ACT is “intrinsically disordered”.

Is this disordered act genetic, learned, chosen, or environmental?

Personally, I think 99.6% of all individuals that acknowlege themselves to be homosexual of some sort, arrive to be that way through choice.

I believe that the other .04% are the ones where the controversy lies.

For those individuals, it is inherently important for them to grow up in a stable, loving, traditional, family unit.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Nope, I am not hiding behind the name of a baby sacrificing god of the Aztecs. It’s a real name.

But not your whole name. You are hiding part of your identity (and rightfully so). So am I. For some reason you find your way of doing it superior to mine.

Actually you sound quite like our old friend Ken/Zoot. As I said, if you aren’t him, you’re his twin. And I don’t think Ken/Zoot was distinguished by his grasp of the physical sciences but by his very unique style.

Interesting. Then I don’t know how to explain it except as coincidence.

No it’s also the style of posting and the unabashed defense of homosexuality in all its variations. Same old, same old. Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now but keep on trying. It will help you justify your worldview.

shrug
I can only present the information I can’t make you internalize any of it.

No I didn’t say it was a disease of homosexuals.

Lisa, here’s a direct quote of yours from the post before your last: “It is still a homosexual disease if you compare the actual incidence within the population.” Isn’t calling it a homosexual disease calling it a disease of homosexuals?

Most AIDS is the result of promiscuous sex

Obviously STDs will be more easily transmitted by people with more partners. Thats more a simply fact of how the diseases work than an indication that having multiple partners is a bad thing.

I do not think a population consisting of monogamous heterosexuals would have created an epidemic of AIDS.

You’re mistaken. Plenty of STDs have risen to epidemic status among heteros, there’s no reason to believe AIDS would have been different.

Oh, somehow you have read my mind and decided that I have castigated every sexual act except a few?

No not at all, why do you take it as a personal argument? The fact is that the Catholic church castigates every sexual act barring a very few exceptions. That’s because they view sex purely in procreative terms. They’re free to do that but due to human biology it has some repurcussions.

Really? You think a very private, powerful and creative act is something that should be discussed in polite company? Why?

Because its a fundamental part of the human nature. We discuss art. We discuss love. We discuss hopes, dreams, fears, hatreds, ad infinitum. But we rarely engage in mature discussions of sex.

Do you discuss your other private acts? Why MUST sex be discussed ad nauseum?

I’d be happy if it was discussed (maturely) just occasionally. That’d be a huge step up.

What about our need to know? I really do not need to know if you have unhealthy impulses. If you feel the desire to discuss them with someone who a) cares and b) can provide helpful information, go to a psychiatrist.

See what I mean about approaching the subject in a mature way? Your first impulse is to label me a pervert in need of therapy. That’s not indicative of a person who can approach the topic maturely. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a personal failing on your part. It’s a societal failing. One we could choose to correct.

Causes of what?

The causes of whatever problem you wish to address. Fighting symptoms is a losing battle.

Oh please. Really if I have not engaged in sodomy then I am naive?

I didn’t say that. I said you were naive for assuming no one could possibly use anal sex as a form of expressing love or affection. I’m happy to repeat the things I’ve said, you don’t have to make up stuff I didn’t.

And you can obtain ‘mutual gratification’ having sex with an animal.

I think the mutual part there is pretty questionable…

The ONLY thing that matters is what you and your partner want. Yep, that’s a good attitude.

I wouldn’t say the only thing, but yes it’s a very important thing. Where precisely is the harm in consensual sex outside of strict vaginal intercourse purely for procreation? You can certainly claim your religion views it as harmful but that religion only applies to it’s adherents. It’s views are not binding on the rest of humanity.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

. For some reason you find your way of doing it superior to mine

Because my name has no message. Yours does. I believe you have deliberately chosen a god of child sacrifice to upset the Catholics on this list. You claim otherwise. However the reality is that it does offend people and if you want to simply be offensive it’s effective.

Tlaloc:

Interesting. Then I don’t know how to explain it except as coincidence.

I keep wondering if there is a ‘coincidence’ about the sudden influx of homosexuals posting on a Catholic list.

" Isn’t calling it a homosexual disease calling it a disease of homosexuals?

No, it is a disease of the immune system. Again, if homosexuals make up 3-10% of the population and if male homosexuals represent some percentage of that minority then if it were not a disease associated with homosexual sex, what would you call it? IOW how did that subgroup contract the disease? From a toilet seat?

Tlaloc:

Obviously STDs will be more easily transmitted by people with more partners.

You’re mistaken. Plenty of STDs have risen to epidemic status among heteros, there’s no reason to believe AIDS would have been different.

No you ignore the reality that male homosexuals have a higher incidence of multiple partners, anonymous sex and promiscuity than heterosexuals AS A GROUP. Further my comment was that MONOGAMOUS heterosexuals would not have created the epidemic. Do you claim that all of the millions of monogamous heterosexuals would have created the incidence of AIDS that we have now?

Tlaloc:

is that the Catholic church castigates every sexual act barring a very few exceptions. That’s because they view sex purely in procreative terms. They’re free to do that but due to human biology it has some repurcussions…

Well I am not the Catholic church and further the Catholic church does not castigate every non-procreative sexual act. Look at the “Theology of the Body” thread for more detail.

Again, I think the perceived benefits of sodomy (some kind of sexual gratification) carries way too much baggage. Sodomy has a lot of ramifications that we need not discuss here. Do I think people are hardwired to want to engage in this behavior? No. But I do think people can be conditioned to be sexually stimulated by some very bizarre activity that becomes in effect a trained response. Is anyone going to die if they do NOT engage in sodomy? Nope. But people who do engage in sodomy may find it a fatal attraction. Again, cost benefit. Do you blindly follow your passions or do you have respect for your body?

Tlaloc:

Because its a fundamental part of the human nature. We discuss art. We discuss love. We discuss hopes, dreams, fears, hatreds, ad infinitum. But we rarely engage in mature discussions of sex.

I’d be happy if it was discussed (maturely) just occasionally. That’d be a huge step up…

For whom and why? Art, nature, beauty, love, hopes, dreams and fears are things that are public. Sex is private.

Tlaloc:

I didn’t say that. I said you were naive for assuming no one could possibly use anal sex as a form of expressing love or affection. I’m happy to repeat the things I’ve said, you don’t have to make up stuff I didn’t…

If you define love as sexual gratification, then you could express love by all manner of practices. Further most homosexuals I’ve spoken to claim that sex and love are two different things. You can love someone and engage in sex with others. That viewpoint is not shared by the traditional heterosexual world. Sex is a precious thing to be shared only among spouses not passed out like coupons at a ball game.

Tlaloc:

I think the mutual part there is pretty questionable…

You would be wrong but we don’t need to get into a graphic discussion of besitality. But hey, if you’ve not tried it how would you know? I guess you are naive right?

Tlaloc:

I wouldn’t say the only thing, but yes it’s a very important thing. Where precisely is the harm in consensual sex outside of strict vaginal intercourse purely for procreation? You can certainly claim your religion views it as harmful but that religion only applies to it’s adherents. It’s views are not binding on the rest of humanity.

Again even the Catholic church does not subscribe to ‘procrative sex only.’ So that’s a bit of a red herring. As to the harm, there are a myriad of potential consequences even to consensual sex–pregnancy, STDs, emotional distress. We have trivialized sex in this culture to the point it has simply become another recreational activity with little thought of the consequences. Rationalizing it by saying the sex was consensual ignores these very serious ramifications.

Lisa N

 

[CreosMary]

Too much science and stats:
“Some are born eunechs for the sake of the Kingdom
Some are made eunechs for the sake of the kingdom
some choose to be eunechs for the sake of the Kingdom”
No matter what your born with or grew up with you have the choice to be holy or damned!

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Yes but you continue to ignore the reality that as a population, homosexual males make up the majority of AIDS cases vis a vis their representation in the overall population. If slightly less than one half of the cases were homosexual males and if 3% of the population is homosexual, then obviously homosexual males are OVER REPRESENTED as a distinct population.

Certainly. I’ve never denied that homosexuals are overrepresented in AIDS cases, only that the disease is not a “homosexual disease.” Yes one group happens to be over-represented. Blacks are overrepresented in sickle cell. It’s unfortunate but it happens.

Further as I said preveiously AIDS is spread by deviant behavior, homosexual sex, promiscuity and IV drug use. It would not be spread by monogamous hetersexuals. Do the math

No STD would be spread by monogamous couples whether hetero or homosexual, thats a consequence of them being, well, sexually transmitted diseases. Just as the common cold wouldn’t be spread if everyone just stopped breathing. Pink eye, glaucoma, and cataracts can be wiped out by gouging out our eyes.

There are all kinds of risks one can avoid by cutting off parts of their life. Still most of us find it not worthwhile.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

I keep wondering if there is a ‘coincidence’ about the sudden influx of homosexuals posting on a Catholic list.

Probably not, it was afterall a major theme of the last election cycle.

No you ignore the reality that male homosexuals have a higher incidence of multiple partners, anonymous sex and promiscuity than heterosexuals AS A GROUP.

I’ve not seen any data toward that end. Do you have some?

Further my comment was that MONOGAMOUS heterosexuals would not have created the epidemic. Do you claim that all of the millions of monogamous heterosexuals would have created the incidence of AIDS that we have now?

I’ve never known a truly monogamous heterosexual so it’s hard to say. Furthermore even listening to the people on this list it seems true monogamy is rare. But if we want to posit fantasy scenarios neither a purely monogamous hetero or homosexual population would suffer much from STDs.

Well I am not the Catholic church and further the Catholic church does not castigate every non-procreative sexual act. Look at the “Theology of the Body” thread for more detail.

I know you aren’t the church and I’m not trying to dehumanize you by equating you with an institution, again my comments are meant in the general not the specific case. But as far as castigating lets look at the list:
Masturbation? Sin.
Oral? Sin.
Anal? Sin.
Multiple partners? Sin.
Contraceptives? Sin.
Unmarried? Sin.
Married couple engaging in vaginal sex without any contraceptive? Okay.

See what I mean?

Again, I think the perceived benefits of sodomy (some kind of sexual gratification) carries way too much baggage.

Again thats because to you the only benefit is some kind of sexual gratification. A celibate can certainly say the same of sex in general. That doesn’t make them right for everyone else.

Sodomy has a lot of ramifications that we need not discuss here. Do I think people are hardwired to want to engage in this behavior? No. But I do think people can be conditioned to be sexually stimulated by some very bizarre activity that becomes in effect a trained response. Is anyone going to die if they do NOT engage in sodomy? Nope. But people who do engage in sodomy may find it a fatal attraction. Again, cost benefit. Do you blindly follow your passions or do you have respect for your body?

Substitute sex for sodomy and your argument above is just as valid. So why do you engage in sexual relations at all? I mean it can be fatal. It certainly comes with baggage. You won’t die without it? Could it be that you feel not quite complete without a sexual component to your life?

For whom and why? Art, nature, beauty, love, hopes, dreams and fears are things that are public. Sex is private.

Only because you find it that way. There’s no logical reason that Sex is any more private or public than Art.

If you define love as sexual gratification, then you could express love by all manner of practices. Further most homosexuals I’ve spoken to claim that sex and love are two different things. You can love someone and engage in sex with others. That viewpoint is not shared by the traditional heterosexual world.

And there are “traditionalists” within gay communities as well who believe that love and sex can only occur together. In both hetero and homo communities they are the miinority these days.

Sex is a precious thing to be shared only among spouses not passed out like coupons at a ball game.

You’re welcome to your opinion on the matter. Just don’t assume its valid for others. Remember subjective/objective?

You would be wrong but we don’t need to get into a graphic discussion of besitality. But hey, if you’ve not tried it how would you know? I guess you are naive right?

I suppose I may be naive but I’m basing it on the fundamental differences between humans and other species.

Again even the Catholic church does not subscribe to ‘procrative sex only.’ So that’s a bit of a red herring.

See the list above.

As to the harm, there are a myriad of potential consequences even to consensual sex–pregnancy, STDs, emotional distress. We have trivialized sex in this culture to the point it has simply become another recreational activity with little thought of the consequences. Rationalizing it by saying the sex was consensual ignores these very serious ramifications.

I absolutely agree with you that sex has become trivialized but you got the cause wrong. It’s been trivialized because it’s been so repressed and then when the inevitable acting out occurs it takes on tawdry forms and demeans the whole thing. Change the repressive atmosphere and people can start having healthy sexual attitudes again.

 

[Zorgnerf]

Tlaloc:

The data indicates genetics contribute to the issue. You can ignore it if you like but reality remains as it was.

The data only indicates a small genetic contribution. See mygenes.co.nz/

Provide me with examples of how genes control our behavior by overriding our own free will choice.

See also narth.com/docs/dejavu.html.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Certainly. I’ve never denied that homosexuals are overrepresented in AIDS cases, only that the disease is not a “homosexual disease.” Yes one group happens to be over-represented. Blacks are overrepresented in sickle cell. It’s unfortunate but it happens…

Baloney. Sickle cell anemia is a GENETIC DISEASE. You are comparing apples and oranges and we are all tired of fruit salad.

Tlaloc:

No STD would be spread by monogamous couples whether hetero or homosexual, thats a consequence of them being, well, sexually transmitted diseases. Just as the common cold wouldn’t be spread if everyone just stopped breathing. Pink eye, glaucoma, and cataracts can be wiped out by gouging out our eyes.

There are all kinds of risks one can avoid by cutting off parts of their life. Still most of us find it not worthwhile.

Another ridiculous comment. The point being that monogamous sex has benefits to both individuals and society aside from any religious aspects. Again glaucoma and cataracts are NOT CONTAGIOUS. Breathing is necessary for life. Sex although it can be pleasureable is not. Many people live much of their lives with no sex and suffer no ill effects. Breathing though is not an optional activity. Really Tlaloc your arguments are getting quite lame here.

Admit to the reality. Monogamy is beneficial to individuals, families and society in general. The only disadvantage is to someone who lives for pleasure only. Who cares about the consequences to themselves or others?

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Again thats because to you the only benefit is some kind of sexual gratification. A celibate can certainly say the same of sex in general. That doesn’t make them right for everyone else…

OK Tlaloc please enlighten us on all of the benefits of sodomy ASIDE from some sort of sexual gratification. Let’s see, cannot create life. Uses body parts in a fashion they were not designed for. Causes serious lower GI problems. Promotes spread of STDs due to the much more extensive vascular system and more delicate tissue. Boy that sounds like a really beneficial activity.

Tlaloc:

Substitute sex for sodomy and your argument above is just as valid. So why do you engage in sexual relations at all? I mean it can be fatal. It certainly comes with baggage. You won’t die without it? Could it be that you feel not quite complete without a sexual component to your life?.

Normal sexual relations can create life. Quite an honor bestowed upon us humans isn’t it? To be co-creators with God. Further since human bodies are designed for male/female sex, there is not the likely damage to the tissues. It is more difficult to spread AIDS through normal male/female sex. Although true there are heterosexually spread STDs again I am not an advocate of promiscuity. While you might think the religious prohibitions against total sexual hedonism are some quaint relic of another age, the reality is that they affirm life, promote health and healthy behavior. Sodomy does not.

BTW the documentation on the promiscuity in the homosexual community is extensive and has been reported on this list numerous times. If you’ve not run into it I’d be surprised. Please check similar threads. If you cannot find the info I’ll dig it up

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

The data indicates genetics contribute to the issue. You can ignore it if you like but reality remains as it was.

I don’t ignore anything. I deem whether it is credible or not. What data are you referring to?

Speaking of ignoring reality, did you know that 2 people of the same sex cannot make a baby and that 2 people of the opposite sex were specifically designed to do so? In fact, if they could not make a baby together, their bodies would make little sense at all.

I don’t think God created bodies to be amusement parks for the mind.

 

[Werner]

Lisa N:

OK Tlaloc please enlighten us on all of the benefits of sodomy ASIDE from some sort of sexual gratification.

You are so right! Sodomy is a big sin! Somebody who doesn’t respect hospitality and even tries to rape his neighbor’s guests for sure is a bad and sinful person.
Thank God i’ve never met anybody who was addicted to such behavior, do you know any?

Werner

 

[RobertinRSA]

Do not be so quick to judge… Jesus came for the sinners. God’s love in unconditional…

What can we say about God’s love? We can say that God’s love is unconditional. God does not say, “I love you, if …” There are no ifs in God’s heart. God’s love for us does not depend on what we do or say, on our looks or intelligence, on our success or popularity. God’s love for us existed before we were born and will exist after we have died. God’s love is from eternity to eternity and is not bound to any time-related events or circumstances. Does that mean that God does not care what we do or say? No, because God’s love wouldn’t be real if God didn’t care. To love without condition does not mean to love without concern. God desires to enter into relationship with us and wants us to love God in return.

Try and show your friends the same love and in doing so, you may show them the true light.

 

[Lisa_N]

Werner:

You are so right! Sodomy is a big sin! Somebody who doesn’t respect hospitality and even tries to rape his neighbor’s guests for sure is a bad and sinful person.
Thank God i’ve never met anybody who was addicted to such behavior, do you know any?

Werner

Werner you make absolutely no sense. However as Tlaloc’s fellow sodomy apologist, maybe you could assist him in responding to the question: Is there any benefit to sodomy other than some sort of sexual gratification?

Lisa N

 

[fix]

Werner:

You are so right! Sodomy is a big sin! Somebody who doesn’t respect hospitality and even tries to rape his neighbor’s guests for sure is a bad and sinful person.
Thank God i’ve never met anybody who was addicted to such behavior, do you know any?

Werner

What does this mean?

 

[Brad]

fix:

What does this mean?

It looks like another poor and tired attempt to limit the definition of sodomy to be only the attempted rape of Lot’s guests per the OT account. It just so happens that his guests were male. It’s akin to saying that if a male human engages in beastiality against the animal’s wishes, then beastiality is no longer beastiality but just rape. Of course, if it was consensual, then it was just love.

Just another strategy by the pro-homosexual agenda to defend the vile and sinful practice that homosexuals engage in. They will stop at nothing. Redefine the Bible. Redefine marriage. Redefine the Law. Redefine history. Anything except to admit “I have a problem and I need help.”

 

[fix]

Brad:

It looks like another poor and tired attempt to limit the definition of sodomy to be only the attempted rape of Lot’s guests per the OT account. It just so happens that his guests were male. It’s akin to saying that if a male human engages in beastiality against the animal’s wishes, then beastiality is no longer beastiality but just rape. Of course, if it was consensual, then it was just love.

Just another strategy by the pro-homosexual agenda to defend the vile and sinful practice that homosexuals engage in. They will stop at nothing. Redefine the Bible. Redefine marriage. Redefine the Law. Redefine history. Anything except to admit “I have a problem and I need help.”

Did not Lot offer his daughter’s? They wanted the men. The hospitality claim is absurd.

 

[Lisa_N]

RobertinRSA:

Do not be so quick to judge… Jesus came for the sinners. God’s love in unconditional…

Try and show your friends the same love and in doing so, you may show them the true light.

Unfortunately while your sentiment is worthy, it doesn’t apply to people who define love as nothing more than the interaction of genitalia. Affirming, accepting, supporting sinful and self destructive behavior is not love. The issue is not the particular sinful behavior, the issue is how do we respond? If I engage in heterosexual sin, say I decide to join a swingers’ group, then is it loving to ignore this sinful, self destructive and emotionally empty practice?

The problem with the homosexual lobby is that they worship at the “if it feels good do it” god and any questioning of their practice or lifestyle is deemed bigotry. Tlaloc claims there is a lot of elitism and spiritual pride amongst Catholics (I think this might be on a different thead but same song different verse). While I agree that we like everyone else are sinners, the major difference is that we do not demand our brand of sinful behavior be supported, affirmed, and taught in public schools. What people do in their bedrooms is between them, their partners and God (assuming nothing illegal is going on). It’s when people wish their sin to receive public affirmation that I object.

Lisa N

 

[Tlaloc]

Zorgnerf:

The data only indicates a small genetic contribution. See mygenes.co.nz/

I’d say that the data is inconclusive on how much influence genes play. it may be pretty small certainly.

Provide me with examples of how genes control our behavior by overriding our own free will choice.

See also narth.com/docs/dejavu.html.

Depends on what you mean. Could you freely choose to be attraced to your sex? Probably not if you have no inclinations that way already. Many homosexuals are the same. They can’t just choose to be straight. They have to choose between being who they are and repressing it.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Baloney. Sickle cell anemia is a GENETIC DISEASE. You are comparing apples and oranges and we are all tired of fruit salad.

The point being? There are a great many factors that can affect the distribution of a disease depending in part on it’s vector. No matter what vector it is there can be disproportionate representations of a certain population. Again: it’s unfortunate but it happens.

Another ridiculous comment. The point being that monogamous sex has benefits to both individuals and society aside from any religious aspects. Again glaucoma and cataracts are NOT CONTAGIOUS. Breathing is necessary for life. Sex although it can be pleasureable is not. Many people live much of their lives with no sex and suffer no ill effects. Breathing though is not an optional activity. Really Tlaloc your arguments are getting quite lame here.

Lisa, honestly I craft the argument to suit the audience. When you make ridiculous aspersions I feel free to do the same. See below where you make blanket statements without support.

Admit to the reality. Monogamy is beneficial to individuals, families and society in general.

I haven’t seen any data toward that end. Do you have some?

The only disadvantage is to someone who lives for pleasure only.

And you’ve done extensive research on the subject right?